Sign in to follow this  
liquidsnakehpks

Minimum System Requirements are extremely high :(

Recommended Posts

I was over excited to play grim fandango remastered and then i saw the system requirements

minimum opengl 3.3 requirement is a buzz kill , i have waited ages to play the game and this is how it ends. I have got 3 laptops and none of them support open gl 3.3 , the nearest i have got is the laptop that has intel hd 3000 and supports open gl 3.1 only.

My question is should i get the game and see if it runs at bare minimum low settings or will i be stopped at the dreaded "your system does not support open gl 3.3"

Its pretty sad that despite the game having a classic mode the requirements are this high , can double fine add a old school hardware compatibility launch method where the game would start up with extremely low settings and classic mode for old hardware like mine where upgrading is not an option.

I got the minimum requirements from gog game page

Minimum system requirements - Windows: Windows Vista or Later

Processor: Dual Core CPU or faster

Memory: 4 GB RAM

Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 4650 (512MB) or NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT, or Intel HD 4000 Graphics

Hard Drive: 4.5 GB available space

Sound Card: Windows Compatible Card

Additional Notes: GPU that supports OpenGL 3.3 or higher

original game requirement

Operating system (OS) 95, 98

Processor (CPU) Pentium 133 MHz

System memory (RAM) 32 MB

Hard disk drive (HDD) 30 MB 1.2 GB (for running without discs)

Video card (GPU) PCI or AGP graphics card 2 MB of VRAM

DirectX 6 compatible

The original game brought a tear to my eye back in the day where it would run smoothly even on a ancient p1 system i had are the changes in the remaster that much that it requires such high config?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit I got a laugh out of the specs, seems to be a common thing now in PC Gaming to over state the minimum to avoid complaints, just look at Metal Slug 3 on Steam, that requires 1GB of RAM and at least a 2GHz Dual Core CPU! It seems the common trend now is to just say i5 and 4GB RAM, since it's bound to work with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll admit I got a laugh out of the specs, seems to be a common thing now in PC Gaming to over state the minimum to avoid complaints, just look at Metal Slug 3 on Steam, that requires 1GB of RAM and at least a 2GHz Dual Core CPU! It seems the common trend now is to just say i5 and 4GB RAM, since it's bound to work with them.

I don't care about the cpu , ram , hdd those all are somehow manageable , what is problematic is specific gpu requirements such as open gl 3.3 or dx 11 etc overstated or not , not meeting the open gl requirement would end up in "your system does not support open gl 3.3" dialog

killing the game on launch

all i am asking is that open gl 3.3 is forced check to run the game? or someone with lower open gl versions be able to play the game ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we're hoping to bring those down. It's just that the optimization work is still ongoing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, we're hoping to bring those down. It's just that the optimization work is still ongoing.

awesome super happy to hear that , all i want is the game to run , i could care less about the fps and effects when you have a 4 year old laptop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As things like 95/98 indicate, it's from the original (the "normal" sized version).

It's creepy to realise how sys requirements exploded, looking at the factors for memory, cpu and gpu. Then again per pixel lightning, shadows, (at least some) higher res textures, ... don't come for free. Still the difference is huge. Is it known what kind of engine/middleware they're using?

Computers get faster, memory gets bigger, systems more complex. Sometimes this enables you to do something new and more powerful, sometimes it's a drag because once simple tasks turned into almost absurd procedures. As for mainstream systems, an A3000 or A4000/40 once felt like the first productive computers but hey an up to date MacBookPro with a SSD boots up surprisingly fast.

I'm looking forward to a fan less silent MacBook with a beautiful screen, reasonable battery life and a good enough GPU/CPU performances. Dunno if Skylake will be able to start this already or if it needs some more time, maybe Apple switching to their own chips, but its within reach and i'm looking forward to the day i can have such a machine again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As things like 95/98 indicate, it's from the original (the "normal" sized version).

It's creepy to realise how sys requirements exploded, looking at the factors for memory, cpu and gpu. Then again per pixel lightning, shadows, (at least some) higher res textures, ... don't come for free. Still the difference is huge. Is it known what kind of engine/middleware they're using?

Computers get faster, memory gets bigger, systems more complex. Sometimes this enables you to do something new and more powerful, sometimes it's a drag because once simple tasks turned into almost absurd procedures. As for mainstream systems, an A3000 or A4000/40 once felt like the first productive computers but hey an up to date MacBookPro with a SSD boots up surprisingly fast.

I'm looking forward to a fan less silent MacBook with a beautiful screen, reasonable battery life and a good enough GPU/CPU performances. Dunno if Skylake will be able to start this already or if it needs some more time, maybe Apple switching to their own chips, but its within reach and i'm looking forward to the day i can have such a machine again.

There is no doubt the hardware keeps evolving over the time but i really cant keep changing hardware every now and then, Thats the reason why i buy laptops with intel HD built in i don't want to bother with a another overheating , driver update happy gfx card.

I hope intel step up their game with more better in built gpus to match gfx cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It costs a lot more to develop things to such tight standards. You could make a whole game that used only 48K of memory (as they did in the 8-bit days), but you'd have to write in assembler -- which will take a lot longer and is more difficult to write in than something modern, with modern tools, and the performance on a typical machine today wouldn't be that much different (provided you weren't pushing things to the edge -- like with a FPS or something).

In other words, it's just not worth taking the extra time to write something so streamlined anymore for a small minority of users. Hopefully they'll lower the specs for Grim Fandango Remastered for those without such cards, but most people will probably be fine either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This pretty much depends on the specific case/system. The Amiga was a nice place for typical assembly projects (68k!). Normally the engine/lib devs (should) care about optimising their stuff, the rest is up to you. No one stops you from using just an text editor with a compiler (and a few libs). Depending on what you utalise and try to achieve, everything from KBs to GBs is possible. But high quality gfx/sfx-data is a bitch if it's not procedurally generated (which depending on the specific case has its own pros and cons again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also please no more puzzles that are hardware dependent. I'm looking at you conveyor belt.
They fixed the conveyor belt issues in ResidualVM, so I'm sure it will be fixed in Grim Fandango Remastered too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@liquidsnakehpks

I understand your point of view (and overheating in notebooks with gpus freezing up can be painful) but time is working against you. Looking f.e. at memory *calc* , Moore's law still is appropriate but more like doubling every 22 months, considering averaged 33 years (there is a decline more recently), going from a C64 from 1982 to a 16 GB system in 2015. Be assured that resources which (theoretically) are available (practically) also will be used (sooner or later).

The best you could hope for, games related, probably is that the gfx are reliable and competitive to the current (next, depending on the year of a cycle you enter) gen of consoles (considering a systems specific environment too). It's easy to suck up a lot of potential just with the increase of resolution, staying at least at 60 fps (and considering vr you also want to increase the frame rate) and less power consumption, not even mentioning coming up with new rendering techniques and stuff ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, we're hoping to bring those down. It's just that the optimization work is still ongoing.
Greg, any idea whether there's something fundamentally preventing it from running on WinXP, or whether it's just not listed because you don't offer any official support for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, we're hoping to bring those down. It's just that the optimization work is still ongoing.
Greg, any idea whether there's something fundamentally preventing it from running on WinXP, or whether it's just not listed because you don't offer any official support for it?

I'd like to add this to the question:

IF it really does run on XP AND requires 4GB does that mean that you have to have 4GB of RAM installed or 4GB of RAM usuable only for the game. Since XP (32Bit) normally does not adress more then 2GB this would be a big problem (which I have experienced running another game lately which also stated to run on XP and did only need 3GB - out of memory crashes a lot).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to add this to the question:

IF it really does run on XP AND requires 4GB does that mean that you have to have 4GB of RAM installed or 4GB of RAM usuable only for the game. Since XP (32Bit) normally does not adress more then 2GB this would be a big problem (which I have experienced running another game lately which also stated to run on XP and did only need 3GB - out of memory crashes a lot).

Windows XP 32-bit (x86) has always supported 4GB.

I think you're misremembering:

Memory limits of Windows XP at Microsoft.com

I'm amazed that people are still using such an old operating system, though. It's now 13 years old. That would be the same as using Windows 2.1 when XP was released. Do modern games still work for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Total physical memory 4gb on x86-32. Though in fact that is not true, because that address space contains special components for DOS compatibility, BIOS ROMs, hardware layers etc. that makes it in fact smaller. In practice, there's around 3-3.5gb that you can actually use. Except that any given program cannot use more than 2gb by it's own, unless it partitions itself into multiple processes. Unless you switch on PAE, which makes up to 64gb available but adds compatibility and performance problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ThunderPeel: Entirely my laziness and (to a certain degree) unwillingness to spend money for new hardware, since I currently don't really need it. Which also answers your question: To this date, I've managed to get every game I wanted to play to run on XP (including Broken Age, naturally). Though admittedly, I'm not gaming much these days, and I'll probably run into compatibility issues sooner rather than later now. I'm just hoping it won't be Grim Fandango Remastered :P

@MarkoH01: What the others said; you can have 4 GB (provided your board supports it; mine doesn't), but you'll only be able to use 3.2 - 3.5 GB of it. The thing is, though, if it does run with XP, chances are you won't need the 4GB. Because XP itself uses a lot less memory than Windows 7 does, leaving more of it for other applications.

Which, incidentally, is the reason I haven't upgraded; I've got 2GB Ram which is a lot for XP, but just barely allows 7 to run in a decent manner (with enough memory left for larger applications).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MarkoH01: What the others said; you can have 4 GB (provided your board supports it; mine doesn't), but you'll only be able to use 3.2 - 3.5 GB of it. The thing is, though, if it does run with XP, chances are you won't need the 4GB. Because XP itself uses a lot less memory than Windows 7 does, leaving more of it for other applications.

I know of the limitations of WinXP (32Bit) hat was why I asked the question in the first place. However it is not true that any aplication would be able to use more than 3GB of RAM without adding the /3GB flag which ist not officially supported and has extreme issues. So - If you have WinXP and a game requires 3GB this could mean that you'll only be able to run it with this flag - making it possible that the game crashes. I've just experienced this with Dreamfall Chapters having installed 4GB of RAM and running out of memory. With the parameter the game crashes before launch.

And now to answering the question (I really don't know why it has to be asked again everytime I write that I use WinXP) why I am using WinXP:

1) I LOVE it. I have Win7 on my second HDD and I only use it for the few games that requires it (multi boot). I hate the Win7 explorer, I hate the search function I hate that it downscales not so good as WinXP does (at least with my hardware this is the case), I hate that you are not able to turn off some of the notifications in the tray, I hate that the whole interface for me is a constant searching where to find what because it is not well thought out in my opinion, I hate the stupid search function which does not work the way I expect it to work. And yes, since I have Win7 on my other HDD I have tried it quite a bit and every time I return to WinXP as my main system. It does however have a better optimized memory management and HDD access.

2) I have many old games and nearly all of them still run on WinXP - not so with Win7.

3) Your comparision with Win 2.1. does not really work. The earlier versions of Win were nothing more then a user interface for MS-DOS so they were not really an OS at all. Other than this - just live and let live. I like WinXP you like Win7 - some even liked Vista. I am just asking if the game supports this OS or not - I don't think I have offended anybody with this question.

Enough OT: The question remains: If I have installed 4GB on my system and run XP (for whatever reason) will I be able to run GF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have windows xp and thanks to a stupid mother board limit i can only use 3.25gb , seriously any of us who bought laptops during 2007-2011 are suffering with shitty hardware it will be a while for us to upgrade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember Win XP is completely dead. It doesn't get any security update anymore so any pc you have with XP you should not hang it on the internet or suspect big security riscs with anything you do. In my country even banks have said if you do internet banking and you use XP and money gets stolen from you banks wont return it because it's your problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just remember Win XP is completely dead.

That's irrelevant. Any 32-bit OS limits the available RAM to less that 4GB. Besides, a game like this requiring 4GB of RAM is just poor optimization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just remember Win XP is completely dead.

That's irrelevant. Any 32-bit OS limits the available RAM to less that 4GB. Besides, a game like this requiring 4GB of RAM is just poor optimization.

You mean the optimization that Greg said they're still doing? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows 8.1 is awesome, feels much faster than Win 7, and which OS do you think Microsoft is going to bother patching from now on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows 8.1 is awesome, feels much faster than Win 7, and which OS do you think Microsoft is going to bother patching from now on?

I don't need patches on my OS to be honest. Also Win 7 support continues to 2020. That's long enough for them to hopefully make a PC OS again. They failed to do that with 8 & now 10.

If I hear the word "app" from them for a PC OS I am instantly disinterested.

And XP was never really good it's unstable compared to windows 7 and misses a lot of features which make windows 7 a lot faster.

Windows 10 is complete PC OS again a lot of the tablet stuff is removed from the default mode.

And for games Windows 10 is gonna be really good when games are starting to support DX12 which will give a big performance boost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just remember Win XP is completely dead.

That's irrelevant. Any 32-bit OS limits the available RAM to less that 4GB. Besides, a game like this requiring 4GB of RAM is just poor optimization.

Any computer with less then 4 GB is way too ready for replacement.

It's time to drop 10 year old hardware.

On windows 7 4GB is minimum recommendation doesn't matter what game the OS just needs that.

You cannot run a stable win 7 and do about anything on that computer with less then that or you pc will be very slow because of paging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the optimization that Greg said they're still doing? :)

They only got two days left... I'm not very optimistic, but let's hope for the best.

Any computer with less then 4 GB is way too ready for replacement.

It's time to drop 10 year old hardware.

What? Since when is a computer with less than 4GB of RAM considered old or "ready for replacement"?

On windows 7 4GB is minimum recommendation doesn't matter what game the OS just needs that.

No, it doesn't. Windows 7 only needs 1GB to run, 2GB being optimal.

You cannot run a stable win 7 and do about anything on that computer with less then that or you pc will be very slow because of paging.

What?! If you don't know what you're talking about, simply don't say anything in order to not mislead others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the optimization that Greg said they're still doing? :)

They only got two days left... I'm not very optimistic, but let's hope for the best.

How do you know how far along they were? They had to post cautious system requirements in order to roll out pre-orders. They were probably decided on in advance, and it's unlikely they'll get updated now until the release. They'll have had plenty of time to work on this. See Massive Chalice, a game that on its previous build was only just about playable on my laptop, but now runs great, and that's probably a bit more complext to optimise, too.

I'll be very surprised if those requirements don't come down quite a way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this